Hi, Jim.... thanks for your reply.......i have been researching this (i am a Christian, buy the way) and hit a stumpling block at every avenue.....i have a specific response to a post of mine from an atheist that i am attempting to counter, but thre may be no counter from a literal point, the atherists response is as follows: from Amon-RA:
"""St. Matthew knew that any messiah of GOD had to be descended through the bloodlines of kings David, Solomon, and Asa (see below for an explanation). Eager to present Jesus as fulfilling this requirement, St. Matthew presents his readers with a lineage for Jesus going through his adopted father, Joseph, and through kings Asa and Solomon, all the way back to king David (Matt 1:1).
But, this presents him with a trilemma -- a trinity of problems:
According to early Christo-Paulian doctrine regarding his birth to a virgin mother, Jesus is not really related to Joseph's (and therefore king David's) lineage
The lineage Matthew presents conflicts flatly with the lineage that St. Luke came up with decades later (Luke 3:23). Luke's version has many more generations than Matthew's, and many of the names do not match up (except for a few which take the line through the Cursed Branch of Jehoiakim and Jeconiah).
In trying to adopt Jesus into David's lineage (Matt 1:12), Matthew presents a family line that goes straight through the Cursed Branch of kings Jehoiakim and his son, Jeconiah (also known as Coniah/Jehoiachin). Matthew either intentionally or unintentionally omits king Jehoiakim in the list, which may confuse some people. But Jehoiakim (not Jeconiah) is undeniably the son of Josiah, and Jeconiah is the son of Jehoiakim.
Jehoiachin/Jeconiah/Coniah are all names for the same king, son of Jehoiakim, who was carried away into captivity/exile in Babylon, and succeeded by his uncle, king Zedekiah (who was the brother of Jehoiakim). See 1st Chron 3:15-19, 2nd Kings 24:6-17, Esther 2:6, Jer 22:24-30, Jer 24:1, 27:20, 37:1). Jeconiah is the father of Shealtiel, and the grandfather of Zerubbabel, etc.
In Jeremiah 22, both kings Jehoiakim and Jeconiah are damned and their descendents forbidden to succeed on the throne of David. (see also Isa 14:18 for references to the Abominable Branch)
Jeremiah 22:24,28-30
"Surely as I live," says *YAHWEH*, "You, Jeconiah, the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, even if you were a signet ring upon my right hand, I would cast you off!"
Is this man Jeconiah a broken, abominable idol, an object for which no one cares?...
Write this man off as if childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days, because no one descended from him shall find success in sitting in the Kingship of David or ruling any more in Judah.
The Branch of Jeconiah is damned forever. Jeconiah was carried away into exile and died there. His grandson, Zerub'babel, returned, but, true to the curse, never returned to the throne. And, none from their lineage has ever since.
In a confused attempt to graft Jesus into a messianic line, the eager Matthew ended up putting Jesus into the cursed lineage branch. Ironically, for all their discrepancies, this is one of the few points at which Matthew's version of the genealogy and Luke's actually agree. That is to say, both stories list Jesus's lineage as running through Zerub'babel and Sheal'tiel, two of the cursed descendents of Jeconiah. Also see Isaiah 14:18 for more Abominable Branch references.
Oddly, Matthew has omitted the name of King Jehoiakim in his list. He left Jeconiah in, though."""
I made the following response by erred on Zedekiak, thus the argument stil stands:
"""Referencing Amon-Ra's earlier post pertaining to Christ's 'Adopted Into Accursed Lineage', it is more than a little confusing as to actually what point he is trying to make. Since the post appears the usual 'cut and paste', we have to ask if Amon-Ra actually has studied the very scripture he is attempting to quote. The exact address he quoted is:
http://f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/messages/41633.htm and was verbatim.
The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus' legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary, and establishes his bloodline, though some believe it is also Joseph's, by assuming that Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24) were the same person and Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Eli (Luke 3:23) were brothers (one being Joseph's father and the other his uncle). Luke 3:23 says, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli." Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary's father and Jesus' grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.
There is another argument that comes from the theme, purpose, and audience of the two gospels. Matthew was written to the Jews to prove that Jesus was in the legal line of David by adoption through Joseph. However, this was not Luke's purpose. Luke was writing to show and emphasize the humanity of Christ. He was writing to Gentiles or Greeks to show Jesus' involvement with the needs of men. In keeping with this focus, we might naturally expect Luke, the doctor, to present the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the source of his true humanity
If it is the intent of Amon-Ra to show conflict between Matthew and Luke, he will need to attempt such an assault from another perspective. His implication that this conflict he has 'discovered' renders the passages faulty is without foundation.
Why do these lineage's, as listed, present Matthew with the 'trilemma' claimed by Amon-Ra?
The claim is made by that "according to early Christo-Paulian doctrine regarding his birth, Jesus is 'not really related to Joseph's (and therefore king David's) lineage. This issue he is trying to make of'Christo-Paulian doctrine' is moot, and I will reiterate: Jesus was Joseph's adopted son, and by this, according to Jewish law, LEGALLY filled the requirement for right to the throne of David. Jesus fulfilled the requirement to the throne by BLOOD, through Mary, whose lineage is traced through Luke, thus establishing Jesus' right to the throne both legally, and by blood.
Lastly, Amon-Ra lectures us that "Matthew presents a family line that goes straight through the 'cursed branch' of kings...Jehoiakim and his son, Jeconiah. If the intent here is to establish some stigmata because none of the line of Jeconiah returned to the throne, of simply to place some illegitimacy to the throne of David, then it fails. While "adopted into a cursed lineage" may appear to sound full of drama, there is, in fact nothing, whatsoever, of import in this, since the line of Josiah, who was the father of Jehoiakim, was not included in any 'curse', so to speak, and his son, Zediakiah assumed the throne of David.
It is curious that in attempting to conclude the diatribe, no mention was made of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, who reigned just before the Babylonian invasion and dispersal. Although Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, and Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim and their lineage never again saw the throne of David, Zedekiah, son of Josiah, re-established the line, thus Jesus is not of that 'curse', although it is present in his line, as well as is a host of other unsavory characters."""
Both Mary's and Joseph's lineage appear to run through Shealtiel, thus through Jeconiah.
Any solution?
Thanks
™ Version 4.2